Bullshit. You've got nothing-- nothing but time to creatively edit a news story to try to portray the case it mentions as if it were a "castle doctrine" case. When in fact, as the story clearly points out, in Texas the castle doctrine applies only to one's home, vehicle and workplace-- same as in Wisconsin. Since that case was not in any of those three places, castle doctrine "got nuttin' to do with it." But that doesn't stop you from throwing in your comment about "your neighbor's property is part of your castle in Texas." That little comment is a reductio ad absurdum-- and nothing more than a feeble attempt to try to portray castle doctrine laws as ridiculous.

Despite the author's confusion in saying "'Texas’ version of a stand-your-ground law, known as the Castle Doctrine" "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" are not identical. Wisconsin has always had "stand your ground," where as "castle doctrine" is new here.

Henry Vilas wrote:Sounds like your gripe is with the article (a syndicated story that is also in today's Wisconsin State Journal). But you would rather blame the messenger. How typical of you.

No, it's pretty clear that my gripe is with you.

What's typical here is how you are trying to deflect attention away when you've been caught. In this case, caught selectively quoting a news story to get it to lead to your ridiculous statement. That story didn't conclude or even suggest that a neighbor's property was "part of your castle" under the Texas castle doctrine law. That was 100% you, Mr. Messenger.

I do blame the messenger-- when the messenger isn't giving the true message or accurate message.

I didn't post the entire article ( but did cite my source) because of the fair use doctrine and forum rules. I copied what was relevant, but if you think that was too "selective" then select quotes that you think I should have included, and explain why. Otherwise, you are just whining.

Prosecutors call Rodriguez an aggressor who could have safely left his neighbor’s driveway anytime. His defense attorneys insist Texas law still gave him the right to defend himself, even if it meant taking a life.

But nobody can discuss this without reading the whole thing.

It's interesting how one person will highlight certain paragraphs as a summation, and another person would highlight totally different paragraphs -- all, I think, in good faith. I believe to an extent we are living in completely different worlds with regard to this issue. The interesting twist is this time, we've got a video of the whole incident -- made by the person on trial -- and we don't have to guess about as much as we do with GZ/TM.

For my own part I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time discussing this -- we're at a forum stalemate, essentially -- except to ask why decelerating a dispute is considered somehow undignified. I'd think a person who decelerated an encounter would be praised as a hero.

It looks to me like some of what happened is cultural programming and values that should at least be acknowledged, whether with pride or regret. That might go a long ways toward explaining one side's world view to those who hold the other. I personally have never thought standing one's ground was a behavior I valued, even in a verbal altercation. To me it just looks like stubbornness, which I see as negative.

Also, I'd like to know whether evidence introduced in the trial shows any or all the people in the incident were drunk.

snoqueen wrote:For my own part I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time discussing this -- we're at a forum stalemate, essentially -- except to ask why decelerating a dispute is considered somehow undignified. I'd think a person who decelerated an encounter would be praised as a hero.

It looks to me like some of what happened is cultural programming and values that should at least be acknowledged, whether with pride or regret. That might go a long ways toward explaining one side's world view to those who hold the other. I personally have never thought standing one's ground was a behavior I valued, even in a verbal altercation. To me it just looks like stubbornness, which I see as negative.

Also, I'd like to know whether evidence introduced in the trial shows any or all the people in the incident were drunk.

That says it all for me...

Any clown can say they were frightened for their life and blow someone away, especially when there are no witnesses, or err, the only witness is dead. Self-defense is one thing, but deliberately putting yourself in a volatile situation while armed is another entirely... Then blowing the guy away for matching your rhetoric is another yet. The recent examples in the news prove that too many people will abuse the stand your ground/Castle Doctrine laws w/o conscience. The promotion of a "guns are the answer" society has already produced what many here predicted last year.

A friend, who moved here from Texas several years ago, saw the same things there that we're witnessing now. Relaxed gun laws aren't the answer.

Henry Vilas wrote:I didn't post the entire article ( but did cite my source) because of the fair use doctrine and forum rules. I copied what was relevant, but if you think that was too "selective" then select quotes that you think I should have included, and explain why. Otherwise, you are just whining.

How about including the sentence that presents the gist of the entire article? "But it offers another example of how laws governing deadly force are tested in the nation’s courtrooms and the many complex legal issues that swirl around each case." The whole point of the article was to illustrate the complexity of self-defense cases-- not to try to make the laws look ridiculous, which was what you attempted to do.

While Rodriguez was not in his own home or vehicle or business when the shooting happened, Houston criminal defense attorney Grant Scheiner said he believes the law still applies because the 2007 revision gave people wider latitude on when they can use deadly force. Rodriguez had a concealed handgun permit.

“We are not questioning his wisdom,” Scheiner said. “We are questioning whether he followed the restriction of the law.”

But Jimmy Ardoin, another Houston criminal defense lawyer, believes Rodriguez’s lawyers have the tougher challenge – convincing jurors that his actions fit any of the exceptions for deadly force under Texas law.

“I’m not sure that if the jury believes he initiated the confrontation, he will get the protection of self-defense laws,” he said.

snoqueen wrote: I personally have never thought standing one's ground was a behavior I valued, even in a verbal altercation. To me it just looks like stubbornness, which I see as negative.

You're a dream come true: to every bully, thug, criminal, invading army, loudmouth, Conquistador, crime syndicate, sociopath, evangelical religious nut, slave owner, abusive domestic partner and telemarketing sales person. I'd rather be their nightmare. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." -- FWN

Dangerousman wrote: You're a dream come true: to every bully, thug, criminal, invading army, loudmouth, Conquistador, crime syndicate, sociopath, evangelical religious nut, slave owner, abusive domestic partner and telemarketing sales person. I'd rather be their nightmare. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." -- FWN

In reality, your theory about snoqueen applies more accurately to the stand your ground laws. We've watched aggressive bullies consistently blow innocent people away while there are far fewer instances of people using guns to deter crime. Your theories about guns often depend on statements that are not truthful.